198.

G.R. No. 96597-99 October 6, 1994

Columbia vs CA

Legal Concept/Definitions:

1. Essence of copyright infringement- The essence of a copyright infringement is the

similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the
copyrighted work
2. What is needed to satisfy probable cause in infringement- Hence, the applicant must
present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased
evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an
unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the
pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause
3. Effect of mere allegations in the issuance of search warrant- Mere allegations as to
the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a
search warrant
4. Basic requirement in issuance of search warrants in piracy- 20th Century Fox Film
Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (164 SCRA 655) has already laid down the rule that a basic
requirement for the validity of search warrants, in cases of this nature, is the
presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which pirated films
are supposed to have been copied.
5. Validity of search warrant in piracy , sample- The presentation of the master tapes of
the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was
necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their
possession the pirated films.

Issue:

Whether or not the search warrant was validly issued in the case

Facts:

On 07 April 1988, the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI"), through its Agent Lauro C.
Reyes, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 159) three applications for search
warrant against private respondents Tube Video Enterprises and Edward C. Cham (ASW No.
95), the Blooming Rose Tape Center and Ma. Jajorie T. Uy (ASW No. 96), and the Video
Channel and Lydia Nabong (ASW No. 97), charging said respondents with violation of
Section 56 of Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No. 49, otherwise known as the Decree on the
Protection of Intellectual Property, as amended by P.D. No. 1988.

Acting on the applications, then Regional Trial Court Judge Maria Alicia M. Austria
conducted a joint hearing during which she made a personal examination of the applicant
and his witnesses. Finding just and probable cause for granting the application at the time,
Judge Austria issued the corresponding Search Warrants ("SW") numbered 95, 96, and 97.
Held:NO

This Court, in 20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (164 SCRA 655) has already
laid down the rule that a basic requirement for the validity of search warrants, in cases of
this nature, is the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which
pirated films are supposed to have been copied. We quote:

The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the
pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search
warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The
petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes
at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely
evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable
cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious.
The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily
reproduced from master tapes that it owns.

The application for search warrants was directed against video tape outlets
which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of
copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. 49.

The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least

substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work.
Hence, the applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to
compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly
pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of
the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be
established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations
as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the
issuance of a search warrant.

We also fully concur with the Court of Appeals when, in resolving petitioners' motion for
reconsideration in CA-G.R. CV No. 22133-35, it ratiocinated thusly:

It is not correct to say that "the basic fact" to be proven to establish probable
cause in the instant cases is not the "unauthorized transfer" of a motion
picture that has been recorded but the "sale, lease, or distribution of pirated
video tapes of copyrighted films."

In applying for the search warrants the NBI charged violation of the entire
provisions of Section 56 of P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D.
No. 1988. This included not only the sale, lease or distribution of pirated
tapes but also the transfer or causing to be transferred of any sound
recording or motion picture or other audio visual work.

But even assuming, as appellants argue, that only the sale, lease, or
distribution of pirated video tapes is involved, the fact remains that there is
 need to establish probable cause that the tapes being sold, leased or
distributed are pirated tapes, hence the issue reverts back to the question of
whether there was unauthorized transfer, directly or indirectly, of a sound
recording or motion picture or other audio visual work that has been
recorded. 7

With due respect to petitioners, the Court does not see a compelling reason to reexamine
its previous position on the issue.